The Charlie Hebdo attack

[masterborn12]

So, i think by this point many of you has already heard of this terrorist attack where 12 people was killed.

Charlie Hebdo which is a satirical french magazine has often been making fun of religious people and some Politicians. They are mostly known for making fun of the Prophet Muhammad. Many leaders of the world has condemned this attack and been calling it extremism. But what do you people think? , there was a terror act in 2011 against the same magazine but it failed. Shouldnt the police see this coming? ,

What are your opinions about this ?


here are some news for you

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/satirical-french-magazine-charlie-hebdo-attacked-by-gunmen

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

 

[Kobrag]

Police can't be everywhere at once, and certainly can't expect a few gunmen to appear in the centre of freaking Paris and shoot **** up.
You really can't blame national intelligence either, they sift through thousands of documents relating to local and international crime and weigh up the likelihoods of threats. They are not prescient.

Heck, the whole don't draw Mohammed thing is a reinforcement of gods law against idolatry [seeing that Mohammed was divinely inspired and all and that another prophet [Isa] was later promoted as the literal human shell of God's will by his followers], rather than a blanket law against satire or political use. But then again, Islam is by nature more driven by scholarly interpretation than most.

Hell, it's even [remotely] possible that this is a false flag attack directed by the rising anti-immigration trend France and the rest of Europe, even newscasters were a bit taken aback that the gunmen didn't attempt to martyr themselves against police or by explosion. One of the BBC 'specialist' even said a serious attempt was a likely possibility based on recent attacks.


IMO,  the lack of martyrdom may be either be:
A] Because of planned follow up attacks
B] Foreign mercenary
C] Hierarchical importance within an organised cell
D] False flag


[Inspired edit]

 

[masterborn12]

Police can't be everywhere at once, and certainly can't expect a few gunmen to appear in the centre of freaking Paris and shoot **** up.
You really can't blame national intelligence either, they sift through thousands of documents relating to local and international crime and weigh up the likelihoods of threats. They are not prescient.

Heck, the whole don't draw Mohammed thing is a reinforcement of gods law against idolatry [seeing that Mohammed was divinely inspired and all and that another prophet [Isa] was later promoted as the literal human shell of God's will by his followers], rather than a blanket law against satire or political use. But then again, Islam is by nature more driven by scholarly interpretation than most.

Hell, it's even [remotely] possible that this is a false flag attack directed by the rising anti-immigration trend France and the rest of Europe, even newscasters were a bit taken aback that the gunmen didn't attempt to martyr themselves against police or by explosion. One of the BBC 'specialists' even said it was a likely possibility based on recent attacks.

I agree, to be honest many are angered right now in france especially against muslims, but i hope hollande tries to calm down people by doing a speech or something. Worst thing is that politicians will use this against immigration

 

[Kobrag]

Edit.
>.>

 

[Swissky]

France.
3 gunmen.
12 killed citizens.
Possibly 4 killed each. (per gunman)
Guillotine. 

 

[Magorian Aximand]

How many more people need to die before we admit that there is a connection between what we believe and how we behave?

 

[Leonidas300]

Soon or later we will see again a "Spain 1609-1613" in Europe.



Ohhh ohh wait, we can't say anything against the ideology of TW forums, we must be silenced, be careful, we'd get banned.

 

[Arvenski]

****ing Islamists.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

How many more people need to die before we admit that there is a connection between what we believe and how we behave?

Anyone who subscribes to "End justify the means" will never admit that, for it'll show the world their depravity.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

I think there's a much larger group of people who are refusing to admit that, but you know that about me already.

 

[Mage246]

IMO,  the lack of martyrdom may be either be:
A] Because of planned follow up attacks
B] Foreign mercenary
C] Hierarchical importance within an organised cell
D] False flag


[Inspired edit]

Or maybe

E] Not everyone wants to die for their cause if it can be avoided

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

I think there's a much larger group of people who are refusing to admit that, but you know that about me already.

The group you're referring to subscribes to that I just described as well.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Some, surely.

But the men who carried out this attack likely didn't. They have no need of excusing their actions by focusing on their accomplishments, because their beliefs render such actions distinctly moral.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

They have no need of excusing their actions by focusing on their accomplishments, because their beliefs render such actions distinctly moral.

Have to slightly disagree on the interpretation there. They essentially slayed without provocation or war (or more importantly a call to war), and this actually nullifies any moral grounds they have. Their (ideologically assumed) place in hell is assured from such actions.

 

[Ambalon]

D] False flag

I really like this option.

They have no need of excusing their actions by focusing on their accomplishments, because their beliefs render such actions distinctly moral.

Have to slightly disagree on the interpretation there. They essentially slayed without provocation or war (or more importantly a call to war), and this actually nullifies any moral grounds they have. Their (ideologically assumed) place in hell is assured from such actions.

They didn't slay without provocation, though. They were defending the name of the prophet Muhammad.
Or something.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

They have no need of excusing their actions by focusing on their accomplishments, because their beliefs render such actions distinctly moral.

Have to slightly disagree on the interpretation there. They essentially slayed without provocation or war (or more importantly a call to war), and this actually nullifies any moral grounds they have. Their (ideologically assumed) place in hell is assured from such actions.

The cartoons are considered blasphemy, which is punishable by death. That's provocation. This is why Kurt Westergaard (and the other 90 or so men who share his name in his home town) have to live with constant police protection.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

Slaying in the name of the prophet requires declaration. You may not murder like a coward in his name.

The cartoons are considered blasphemy, which is punishable by death. That's provocation. This is why Kurt Westergaard (and the other 90 or so men who share his name in his home town) have to live with constant police protection.

Blasphemy punishments were never meant to be by acts of terrorism though. There's an extensive part to judging and killing a blasphemer. Like I said, they didn't even follow their own laws of dishing out punishment. Even in their imaginary god's land, they had no legal grounds to do what they did.

Thus why they're basically people who's end justify the means.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Define "declaration" and provide scriptural support. Because the millions of rioting Muslims regarding various cartoons and youtube videos suggests your interpretation is not exactly law, or very well known.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

Define "declaration" and provide scriptural support. Because the millions of rioting Muslims regarding various cartoons and youtube videos suggests your interpretation is not exactly law, or very well known.

That was for Ambi initially. For you, like I said, the people who follow their own snuff can't even practice what they preach and just make it up as they go regarding when, how to feel offended and how to act out on it.

Contrast the pleadings of a "moderate" Muslim on how offensive material, blasphemous material, and punishing transgressors are supposed to be and you'll find scripture support or otherwise, they quite literally have no idea what they're doing and are just working to an end by the most convenient (or gratifying) means available.

Edit: Basically one of the largest lies of the world is that Islam is an organized religion. For its supposedly rigidly structured way of practice, different Islamic countries (Contrasting South East Asian Islamic countries with say, Pakistan for example) all have a different set of Muslim laws and interpretations in place. They quite literally make **** up as they go along so it doesn't clash with what's comfortable for them.

 

[Arvenski]

Slaying in the name of the prophet requires declaration. You may not murder like a coward in his name.

Pardon my almost nonexistent knowledge of the workings of Islam, but afaik extremists like them have been getting called to jihad against those considered offensive to their god or whatever bull**** since before 9-11, and have been pretty much at war with the world ever since. Isn't that enough of a declaration or call to arms for them?